Help! Camera Lenses for Alaska Cruise

[HughJasol]

Hi All!

 

I should have started posting sooner, as I leave for my trip this Saturday (flying into Seattle). We're taking Carnival out of Seattle on Monday 5/6, and starting in Juneau, then to Glacier Bay, Ketchikan, Skagway, and Victoria. We only have a couple of excursions booked (one is a zip line tour, so I won't be using my DSLR for that one; but one is a nature hike and supposed to be a good one for photography). Anyway, I have a Canon 80D, and a small arsenal of lenses, and I'm having trouble deciding what to take with me. I have a big Tamrac backpack that will fit everything I would want to take (and I believe it is just the right size to meet American's carry-on guidelines), and I have a small Tamrac lens bag that I plan to pack in my checked luggage, then use that to carry my lenses for the day once I get Seattle; although neither my camera nor the mounted lens will fit in that bag, but I have a good LensCoat rain cover that will be readily available in the event of inclement weather.

 

Another factor is the filter size. I had thought about taking different lenses, but the ones I think I have it narrowed down to all use 77mm filters (I don't want to deal with step-up rings. I have 77mm ND filters; although I do have 67mm, 72mm and 77mm CPLs); so I like the idea of having just 77mm filters, but that rules out a couple of lens candidates I thought about taking.

 

I won't be taking a tripod, but will have my PlatyPod Ultra (will work with any of the lenses below, including the 100-400mm in most cases), and will have my Sirui P-326 monopod with an Arch-Swiss Monoball p0 (which I will use for the PlatyPod too).

 

Anyway, here's is the pool of lenses I'm considering choosing from:

 

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM  (77mm)

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM  (**but 72mm filter size)

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM  (77mm)

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Nano USM  (**but 67mm filter size)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM  (77mm)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM  (77mm)

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II Nano USM  (**but 67mm filter size)

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM  (77mm)

Canon Extender EF 1.4x III

 

My thinking right now is to just take these:

 

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

Canon Extender EF 1.4x III

 

I'm pretty set on the 100-400mm w/ 1.4x extender, and the 10-22mm. I hate not having my go-to EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 (pretty much like not having your 24-70mm f/2.8 on a full-frame body), so I thought about packing that in addition to, or instead of the 24-105mm. I would LOVE to bring my new 70-200 f/2.8L IS III USM, but I think it's overkill. I'm trying to go lean & mean, but have all the bases covered, yet without having to swap lenses all the time (yes, I realize there will need to be some swapping, but I would like to keep it down to a minimum, and may have to minimize it due to weather anyway).

 

Also, regardless of what I choose above, I will also be bringing my Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. It's small, light, fast and will fit in my coat pocket easily. I always like to have this lens handy for low-light situations. We won't even count that one - it's coming with me lol.

 

I would appreciate any thoughts/input/reinforcement/criticism . . . thanks!

 

 

 

 

[HughJasol]

In addition to the 17-55mm, I am considering the 18-135mm instead of the 24-105mm . . . the plus being the extended focal range, thus swapping lenses less. The main drawback being the IQ not being as good as the "L" series 24-105mm. I guess the 67mm filter size isn't a deal breaker - I have a 67mm CPL, I will just forgo the ND filters (I probably wouldn't use them anyway). I think this is the only area I am uncertain on: EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-4.5, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, or EF 24-105mm F/4L - which one (or two)?

[quack2]

I'm heading to Alaska in June.  I just bought a new Tamron 18-400 for my Canon 70D.  Will probably take my 18-55 along too.

 

Hoping for varied wildlife shots primarily.  Whales, birds, seals, otters, etc.

[mskaufman]

I have the Tamron 18 - 400.  I wish that I had it for AK a couple of years ago (I had the Tamron 18 - 270 then) because the longer the zoom the better.  The 18 - 400 worked great on our river cruise last year.

[HughJasol]

I definitely won't be buying any new lenses before I go, I'm trying to choose from what I have listed above (and apart from the 15-85mm, all of which have been checked/serviced by Canon and tuned to my camera with microfocus adjustments) ...

 

As much as I hate not having it, I think I've ruled out the 17-55mm f/2.8. To go along with the 10-22mm and 100-400mm, I'm down to choosing between the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (+better focal range, +lighter, -different filter size than the rest of my kit) and the 24-105mm f/4L (+better IQ, +faster lens thru most of the range).

[quack2]

2 hours ago, mskaufman said:

I have the Tamron 18 - 400.  I wish that I had it for AK a couple of years ago (I had the Tamron 18 - 270 then) because the longer the zoom the better.  The 18 - 400 worked great on our river cruise last year.

 

I'm glad you like it.  I'm looking forward to putting it to good use.  I've seen amazing wildlife on the Kenai Fjords tours in the past.

 

[Heidi13]

I travel with a couple of 5D bodies and for lenses take my 16-35 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8. Also take my Extender EF 2.0

 

I generally keep the 70-200 on one body, with/without the extender and then one of the other 2 lenses on the other body, as I prefer not changing lenses when on tour.

 

If I was taking 3 lenses, my preferences would be:

• 17-55 f/2.8 - good fast lens & if needing wider, photo-stitch
• 24-105 f/4 - my go to lens
• 70-200 f/2.8 - rarely travel without it, even if it is heavy. If needing more reach, I would crop in editing.
• Extender

[mskaufman]

14 hours ago, quack2 said:

 

I'm glad you like it.  I'm looking forward to putting it to good use.  I've seen amazing wildlife on the Kenai Fjords tours in the past.

 

I also have a 40X bridge camera. I leave it in the cabin and pull it out when needed.  It was valuable for glacier viewing from the ship.

[Tourist1292]

I just bought the Tamron 18-400 mm lens for my Canon. It will be the only lens I need and bring to Alaska next week. I would avoid changing lens on the tour particular in Alaska where it may be rainy most of the time.

[HughJasol]

19 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

I travel with a couple of 5D bodies and for lenses take my 16-35 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8. Also take my Extender EF 2.0

 

I generally keep the 70-200 on one body, with/without the extender and then one of the other 2 lenses on the other body, as I prefer not changing lenses when on tour.

 

If I was taking 3 lenses, my preferences would be:

• 17-55 f/2.8 - good fast lens & if needing wider, photo-stitch
• 24-105 f/4 - my go to lens
• 70-200 f/2.8 - rarely travel without it, even if it is heavy. If needing more reach, I would crop in editing.
• Extender

 

If I was taking 2 bodies, I would probably take the 24-105 as my go-to lens (and switch with the 10-22 for those rare situations as needed, weather permitting); and then leave the 100-400 (with/without 1.4x extender, depending on situation) on the other body. Since I'm only going to have one body, I think the 18-135mm will be best for my go-to, everyday lens. I will mount the 100-400 w/ 1.4x extender for tours/hikes where I expect to see wildlife (which I'm hoping to see lots of) and just deal with the 140mm minimum focal length. And then keep the 10-22 in my day bag on days the weather is good (along with my 50mm f/1.8).

 

I don't want to take both the 70-200 f/2.8 and 100-400mm, and I think the 100-400 makes more sense for this trip. Also, I only bought the 1.4x III extender; I decided against the 2x as I've heard the IQ suffers too much, not to mention losing 2 stops of light and loss of AF on my camera; although on the 70-200 f/2.8, the 2-stop loss to f/5.6 would be acceptable. But on the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, a max aperture of f/11 at 400mm, coupled with the compromised IQ, the 2x extender just didn't make sense. BUT, I think it may be a good fit for my 70-200 f/2.8, so I may pick one up at some point (hadn't really thought about that until I read your post, so thanks for that!)

[HughJasol]

2 hours ago, Tourist1292 said:

I just bought the Tamron 18-400 mm lens for my Canon. It will be the only lens I need and bring to Alaska next week. I would avoid changing lens on the tour particular in Alaska where it may be rainy most of the time.

 

I've heard a lot about this lens here (and elsewhere) recently ... I will definitely have to check it out when I get back and consider getting one of these before my next trip. It sounds good on paper, I just need to research the reviews and see how the IQ, CA, AF, vignetting and distortion are.

 

I'll admit I'm kind of a Canon snob when it comes to lenses, and I only own 1 non-Canon lens (Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art). Sigma is pretty much the only non-Canon brand I had considered (I have the new 60-600mm "Bigma" on my radar), but I realize there are some Tokina/Rokinon lenses out there getting some good reviews.

[Tourist1292]

1 hour ago, HughJasol said:

 

I've heard a lot about this lens here (and elsewhere) recently ... I will definitely have to check it out when I get back and consider getting one of these before my next trip. It sounds good on paper, I just need to research the reviews and see how the IQ, CA, AF, vignetting and distortion are.

I too read many reviews and YouTube video on this lens before the purchase. I wish I had ordered it around New Year when I found a good deal on it before the MSRP went up $50. I ended up ordering one with Canadian warranty.

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, HughJasol said:

 

If I was taking 2 bodies, I would probably take the 24-105 as my go-to lens (and switch with the 10-22 for those rare situations as needed, weather permitting); and then leave the 100-400 (with/without 1.4x extender, depending on situation) on the other body. Since I'm only going to have one body, I think the 18-135mm will be best for my go-to, everyday lens. I will mount the 100-400 w/ 1.4x extender for tours/hikes where I expect to see wildlife (which I'm hoping to see lots of) and just deal with the 140mm minimum focal length. And then keep the 10-22 in my day bag on days the weather is good (along with my 50mm f/1.8).

 

I don't want to take both the 70-200 f/2.8 and 100-400mm, and I think the 100-400 makes more sense for this trip. Also, I only bought the 1.4x III extender; I decided against the 2x as I've heard the IQ suffers too much, not to mention losing 2 stops of light and loss of AF on my camera; although on the 70-200 f/2.8, the 2-stop loss to f/5.6 would be acceptable. But on the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, a max aperture of f/11 at 400mm, coupled with the compromised IQ, the 2x extender just didn't make sense. BUT, I think it may be a good fit for my 70-200 f/2.8, so I may pick one up at some point (hadn't really thought about that until I read your post, so thanks for that!)

Agree the 2x Extender is not a good fit for the 100-400, but works well on the 70-200/f2.8. Have used it in both Alaska & African Safaris. It was either purchasing a new big telephoto, or the extender. For the dollars, I happily lost a couple of f/stops. Definitely worth considering one in the future. 

 

[mskaufman]

7 hours ago, Tourist1292 said:

I just bought the Tamron 18-400 mm lens for my Canon. It will be the only lens I need and bring to Alaska next week. I would avoid changing lens on the tour particular in Alaska where it may be rainy most of the time.

 

I also do not like changing lenses when touring, even if it is not raining.

[masterdrago]

I like your pick three.  I would leave the extender at home. Too much of a pain switching for what you might gain. I've pared my bag down to a 10-24, 28-300 and a 150-600 all on 2 dx format bodies. Dropped the 8mm since I can use the GoPro 7 Black for super wide. Dropped the 18-200 due overlap w/10-24. Frees up space in the bag for the chargers and cleaning gear.

[peety3]

On 5/3/2019 at 4:03 PM, masterdrago said:

I like your pick three.  I would leave the extender at home. Too much of a pain switching for what you might gain. I've pared my bag down to a 10-24, 28-300 and a 150-600 all on 2 dx format bodies. Dropped the 8mm since I can use the GoPro 7 Black for super wide. Dropped the 18-200 due overlap w/10-24. Frees up space in the bag for the chargers and cleaning gear.

I know I'm too late to be of help, but I agree with leaving the extender at home. You're already on a crop camera, so high ISO performance is limited. You're going to want good shutter speeds, so the extender's 1-stop sacrifice isn't helping you.

 

I almost wonder if you could have been happy with the 17-55/2.8 and the 100-400, nothing else. You really don't need to cover (almost) every millimeter from one end to the other. I usually cruise Alaska with a 14, 24-70, 100-400, and 600, and never feel that I've got a hole to fill.